Support NeoGAF

[KrellRell]

Why are posters saying taxing won't work?

Tobacco is a clear case study. It took a long time and also tons of public health messages, but saying its not effective is naive.

You're saying usage decreased because of public health message, ie eduction, not taxation. You honestly think people stopped buying cigarettes because they became too expensive? I'd say saving money is a convenient benefit of quitting, not the cause of. It's about health not money.

Addicts stop buying something when they are out of money, and then they find a way to get money so they can buy more.

 

[Skyzard]

Don't need no gawd dayum liberal government telling me how much soda to drink.

You may not but a significant amount need reminding to prevent (costly) illness down the line.

 

[Death Metalist]

I'm not from USA but all this taxing on soda's reminded me of Penn and Teller's:Bullshit episode on Fast Food.

 

[entremet]

I understand that, but 68 cents added to the price is a 2L isn't going to stop people from drinking it. It's just going to cost them more to do it. People make decision based on what they want to do, costs being a factor, but not necessarily a deciding factor. This is evident through the average household debt.

I guess it's how you see government and its purpose

What should the government do to tackle the obesity epidemic?

You're saying usage decreased because of public health message, ie eduction, not taxation. You honestly think people stopped buying cigarettes because they became too expensive? I'd say saving money is a convenient benefit of quitting, not the cause of. It's about health not money.

It was many things, along with rising prices. You can't fight these things with only one tactic.

 

[kick51]

The tide is shifting on aspartame too. I just noticed this recently:

General Mills is actually advertising their yogurt is aspartame free.

Is that based on anything or did soccer moms get up in arms over it on a flimsy pretext

 

[Nafai1123]

It's pretty dumb not to tax diet soda's. They are arguably worse for you than regular soda.

 

[IISANDERII]

I thought that was to do with all of the lung cancer. I had no idea that a moderate raise in price helps someone combat their own addictions.

It also helps prevent people from getting addicted in the first place.

 

[KrellRell]

I guess it's how you see government and its purpose

What should the government do to tackle the obesity epidemic?



It was many things, along with rising prices. You can't fight these things with only one tactic.

I believe government needs to put pressure on the manufacturers, not the consumers. That combined with education.

A better possible solution would be to limit the amount of sugar in soft drinks, instead of making them more expensive.

 

[notworksafe]

I guess it's how you see government and its purpose

What should the government do to tackle the obesity epidemic?

Regulate the industry, don't tax the consumer.

 

[entremet]

I believe government needs to put pressure on the manufacturers, not the consumers. That combined with education.

A better possible solution would be to limit the amount of sugar in soft drinks, instead of making them more expensive.

I agree, but how much power does the government have to do that?

There will be massive lawsuits from the food companies. Baby steps.

Even the EU, which has more regulation, can't tell Coca Cola to make their products less sugary.

 

[tokkun]

Meh, seems silmiar to a "Vice tax", I'm an on and off smoker, but I don't really complain when they raise the tax on them. It's not something I need, and does help curb my purchases. I recognize that that is not the case for a lot of people, and can even be seen as a classist approach to the issue since it's the working/poorest sector of society that is addicted to such things do to societal issues. But one thing I don't want happening is raised taxes on beer.

It's not a pure vice tax, though, because obesity has a significant financial impact on society through health care costs. You could argue that it's an attempt to reflect some of the real cost of those products on society.

Another way of viewing it is that you are already paying an obesity tax whether or not you are buying soda through higher costs for health care and tax dollars that go towards funding Medicare and Medicaid. The tax on soda mere shifts the burden more towards the people responsible for the obesity.

 

[Somnid]

That's what I thought.

Surely smoking is way down in popularity compared to where it was decades ago, no? It certainly seems like that from my own experience.

I doubt it, the same way I doubt scare tactics and health concerns about cigarettes work either. Rather, it's been increasing cultural disdain for the practice (Which is indirectly affected by such measures) which creates pressure because you are "that smoker guy." It hits the individual much harder and eventually gets them to rationalize it the way you expect.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Can you source that?

This is what is really happening.
"You guys are making a lot of money selling unhealthy things to people? We want a cut of that too!"

It has nothing to do with consumption. Raising prices to discourage consumption is such a poor solution.

An example paper here: http://www.michiganjb.org/issues/2/article4.pdf

It has very little effect on the number of users - there tends to be a reduction in the number of people who haven't built up much of a habit, so, for example, a rise in cigarette taxes sees drops in the number of teenage smokers particularly - but what it does do is reduce the amount of cigarettes each user has. I don't disagree that a) there are more effective ways of doing this, and b) this will probably have greater impact as a revenue raiser, but at the same time, it does have some good implications for public health.

 

[Rootbeer]

I live in Berkeley... one more reason to kick the habit. I do still cave in and get a soda once in a while. Though I have pretty much given up on energy drinks due to the side effects.

And wow SIXTY-EIGHT CENTS extra on a 2-liter? As they are often on sale for around $1 that is nearly doubling the price. Going to be interesting to see what the soda isle in the grocery stores around here looks like after this takes hold. I can see them greatly decreasing the amount they keep in stock as people avoid it like the plague.

What’s covered by the tax?

Measure D focuses on the distribution of sugary soda, energy drinks, juice with added sugar, and syrups that go into sugary drinks at cafes like Starbucks (like Frappuccinos).

100% juice and drinks with milk as the first (primary) ingredient are exempt because of their nutritional value. These drinks are not the cause of the huge increase in sugary drink consumption, especially among children. Measure D is focused on high-sugar, low-nutrition drinks. Coconut water, contrary to the opposition’s insistence, is NOT taxed unless it has added sugar. Diet soda is exempt because it does not have added sugar, the subject of this tax. Alcohol is exempt because it is already taxed.

http://www.berkeleyvsbigsoda.com/faq

Hmm but the "first ingredient" in a (for example) caramel macchiato is undoubtably milk, not sugar. So why would that be taxed if it's more milk than syrup & coffee?

 

[User 479360]

In the long run, this is smart. However, I've become a pop addict and paying more for it wouldn't really deter me. It'd piss me off, but I'd do it.

(I drink about two Cokes per day)

 

[braves01]

Regulate the industry, don't tax the consumer.

Yeah but imagine the outrage if soda cannot contain more than X grams of sugar per ounce or cannot be sold to consumers over a certain quantity. Then people would really lose their shit.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Should be 10 cents an ounce.

Should be made with sugar not hfcs with this tax

 

[andycapps]

Straight black coffee with no additives? None.

Coffee ordered by the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans? Enough.

Then you can't tax "coffee." You can tax coffee drinks exceeding X amount of calories or some such. I drink only black coffee, Americanos, red eyes/or black eyes so I would hope they'd never tax "coffee" across the board.

 

[Borgnine]

Pay up fatties. Next on the ballot: Frozen Meal Tax. 1 cent for each minute it takes to cook it the microwave.

 

[Damaniel]

The tide is shifting on aspartame too. I just noticed this recently:

General Mills is actually advertising their yogurt is aspartame free.

Mainly because aspartame tastes like ass and sucralose is cheap now that the patents held by the makers of Splenda have expired. Sucralose is quickly becoming the sweetener of choice for almost everything now that it's so cheap and widely available.

I don't see much of an issue with taxing sugary drinks. They're by far the biggest contributor to obesity (since it's so easy to drink down 1000 extra calories a day or more in soda), and anything that gets people to think twice and consider alternatives (even just something like diet soda instead of the sugary kind) is a health win.

 

[SummitAve]

It's pretty dumb not to tax diet soda's. They are arguably worse for you than regular soda.

Arguable by an uneducated person maybe.

 

[Cagey]

Then you can't tax "coffee." You can tax coffee drinks exceeding X amount of calories or some such. I drink only black coffee, Americanos, red eyes/or black eyes so I would hope they'd never tax "coffee" across the board.

That would merely incentivize people to order black coffee to pay the lower price, and then hit the countertop to add all of their sugary desires on their own time. You'll have to take one for the team.

 

[DarkFlow]

Proven with cigarettes? There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that increases in cigarette taxes have a statistically significant effect on consumption.

They didn't do shit to me when I smoked. They just pissed me off that I had to spend more money.

 

[Skyzard]

Arguable by an uneducated person maybe.

Diet soda does give the impression of no health damage when it still affects your teeth and the artificial sweetners they use have unknown health effects but are suspected to cause cancer and diabetes.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

They didn't do shit to me when I smoked. They just pissed me off that I had to spend more money.

Anecdotal evidence, etc, etc.

 

[Kuroyume]

Why not just ban soda altogether if they're so serious about it?

 

[soundscream]

What’s covered by the tax?

Measure D focuses on the distribution of sugary soda, energy drinks, juice with added sugar, and syrups that go into sugary drinks at cafes like Starbucks (like Frappuccinos).

100% juice and drinks with milk as the first (primary) ingredient are exempt because of their nutritional value. These drinks are not the cause of the huge increase in sugary drink consumption, especially among children. Measure D is focused on high-sugar, low-nutrition drinks. Coconut water, contrary to the opposition’s insistence, is NOT taxed unless it has added sugar. Diet soda is exempt because it does not have added sugar, the subject of this tax. Alcohol is exempt because it is already taxed.

http://www.berkeleyvsbigsoda.com/faq

What about Milkshakes?

 

[DarkFlow]

Anecdotal evidence, etc, etc.

Okay, please find me a smoker that quit because the tax was too high.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why not just ban soda altogether if they're so serious about it?

I think the idea is that these things are fine in moderation, but people aren't doing a very good job of moderating themselves. Banning them is too draconian.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Okay, please find me a smoker that quit because the tax was too high.

Done this already this thread - see my post earlier on this page. It doesn't do much to make long-term smokers quit, but it does make them reduce the number of cigarettes they consume.

 

[SummitAve]

Okay, please find me a smoker that quit because the tax was too high.

How can you be seriously asking this?

 

[eosos]

Fuck sin taxes.
It should not be the job of the government to regulate what I put in my body.
Edit: If they really want to help, ending corn subsidies is the way to go.

 

[God Dayumm]

If they tax soda they should in turn subsidize water. Otherwise this is a war on the poor.

 

[DarkFlow]

How can you be seriously asking this?

Because I want to know? I've never met any, but I guess they exist, somewhere.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Straight black coffee with no additives? None.

Coffee ordered by the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans? Enough.

I add a little bit of 2% milk in my coffee and that's it. Still tastes good, and not unhealthy.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

An ingenious way to make sure the poor pay their fair share of taxes. Good going Berkeley. Didn't know you had it in you.

 

[SummitAve]

Because I want to know? I've never met any, but I guess they exist, somewhere.

You can't fathom somebody no longer being able to afford cigs at $10 a pack? Or at the very least, buying/smoking less?

 

[xsarien]

Then you can't tax "coffee." You can tax coffee drinks exceeding X amount of calories or some such. I drink only black coffee, Americanos, red eyes/or black eyes so I would hope they'd never tax "coffee" across the board.

This. A large amount of the drinks available at Starbucks (as an example) are mostly dairy and sugar, with a token amount of coffee added for flavor. It's ridiculous, and probably giving a lot of unsuspecting daily drinkers a fast track to diabetes.

 

[DarkFlow]

You can't fathom somebody no longer being able to afford cigs at $10 a pack? Or at the very least, buying/smoking less?

As someone that smoked for 10 years, no I can't. I would spend less of food or other things to afford smokes. When you're addicted to smoking, you'll do a lot to get more, even if it means not eating.

I don't see that happening with soda thankfully, but at least with smoking, money is not something you factor in most the time.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So I can still go to the supermarket and buy gallons of ice cream and boxes of Crunch Berries right?

The tax is pretty heavy (68 cents on a normally $2 two liter bottle is a 34% hike, yikes), it should be interesting to see how this works out. I could see it passing easily in Boston with all the bans we have on sugary drinks around the state. Overall it will promote more health and/or more funding to treat those crippled by sugar addiction.

Edit:

Ridiculous. Taxation is not a solution, that's been proven with cigarettes. People will just spend more money they don't have.

I don't think that's a huge problem if you live in Berkeley.

Double Edit: This doesn't include coffee? What a complete joke.

 

[Cagey]

This. A large amount of the drinks available at Starbucks (as an example) are mostly dairy and sugar, with a token amount of coffee added for flavor. It's ridiculous, and probably giving a lot of unsuspecting daily drinkers a fast track to diabetes.

Correct. The law including syrup-infused drinks is a good start, but it should go much further in scope.

But that would impact, among other things, demographics which include the people pushing for the soda-targeting law to begin with. Can't have that. It's, like, totally different to get a jolt of caffeine from a 130 calorie venti iced coffee than it is to get it from a 12oz can of Coke.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Even San Francisco couldn't do it. And Bloomberg tried for years. The American Beverage Association is strong and fully mobilized against a tax, and some voters are opposed to taxes of any kind.

I imagine there are some people who, whilst not ideologically opposed to taxes, don't want the things they want to buy to go up in price.

 

[SummitAve]

As someone that smoked for 10 years, no I can't. I would spend less of food or other things to afford smokes. When you're addicted to smoking, you'll do a lot to get more, even if it means not eating.

I don't see that happening with soda thankfully, but at least with smoking, money is not something you factor in most the time.

You must be some sort of ultra cig addict on the level of an alcoholic. When I smoked, and worked at convenience stores, cig tax being hiked up at least a dollar at a time was usually the straw that broke the "wanting to quit" smokers back.

 

[Earthstrike]

You're saying usage decreased because of public health message, ie eduction, not taxation. You honestly think people stopped buying cigarettes because they became too expensive? I'd say saving money is a convenient benefit of quitting, not the cause of. It's about health not money.

Addicts stop buying something when they are out of money, and then they find a way to get money so they can buy more.

The discussion about cigarettes aside, It's well established in the literature that applying a tax to something has an effect on the quantity demanded. No, sales won't drop to zero, noone said it would, but consumption will be decreased by an amount dependant on the elasticity of demand for soda.

 

[DarkFlow]

You must be some sort of ultra cig addict on the level of an alcoholic. When I smoked, and worked at convenience stores, cig tax being hiked up a dollar at a time was usually the straw that broke the "wanting to quit" smokers back.

Not really, I smoked maybe pack a day. Everyone is different, so that's why I wanted to know. Shocking I know.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

As someone that smoked for 10 years, no I can't. I would spend less of food or other things to afford smokes. When you're addicted to smoking, you'll do a lot to get more, even if it means not eating.

I don't see that happening with soda thankfully, but at least with smoking, money is not something you factor in most the time.

What do you think caused people to stop smoking or just smoke less, then?

 

[KrellRell]

The discussion about cigarettes aside, It's well established in the literature that applying a tax to something has an effect on the quantity demanded. No, sales won't drop to zero, noone said it would, but consumption will be decreased by an amount dependant on the elasticity of demand for soda.

The issue is that addictive substances are highly inelastic.

 

[Casimir]

Can you source that?

This is what is really happening.
"You guys are making a lot of money selling unhealthy things to people? We want a cut of that too!"

It has nothing to do with consumption. Raising prices to discourage consumption is such a poor solution.

From a meta review of cigarette taxation:

There was strong evidence that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a more effective tobacco control policy measure for reducing smoking behavior among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status...

...The majority of studies found that persons of low socioeconomic status are more responsive to price than the general population. This indicates that increased price has the potential to benefit disadvantaged groups and thereby contribute to reducing health inequalities.

You must be some sort of ultra cig addict on the level of an alcoholic. When I smoked, and worked at convenience stores, cig tax being hiked up at least a dollar at a time was usually the straw that broke the "wanting to quit" smokers back.

Of three tobacco policies investigated (taxation, clean air restrictions, and media/comprehensive campaigns), higher prices had the greatest association with making a quit attempt in the past year


_________________________________

NIH

 

[Salvadora]

As someone that smoked for 10 years, no I can't. I would spend less of food or other things to afford smokes. When you're addicted to smoking, you'll do a lot to get more, even if it means not eating.

I don't see that happening with soda thankfully, but at least with smoking, money is not something you factor in most the time.

After smoking for 5 years, the ever increasing price of cigarettes certainly was a big factor in me (successfully) quitting.

 

[Moral Panic]

Double Edit: This doesn't include coffee? What a complete joke.

What's wrong with Coffee?